D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Hexmage-EN]

Something else I should have mentioned earlier is that Orcus has frequently been depicted as seeking to graduate from a demon lord to a god. In 2E he accidentally destroyed himself in the process before being resurrected (with his undead counterpart Tenebrous also becoming a thing), the 3E Ghostwalk setting featured Orcus as a god, and in 4E Orcus attempted to use a shard of the Abyss' core to kill the goddess of death, gain her divine spark to become the new god of death, and then use this divine influence over the fates of souls to turn all who die into undead thralls.

So "god" is, at least in some depictions throughout D&D history, definitely a step-up from demon lord or devil.

 

[Lanefan]

You can do that, but it means either putting Bane in charge of Asmodeus, or making Asmodeus a god. They can't both exist as the Lord of Tyranny on the same spectrum.

But, part of the problem with making that change is many people don't want to see classic characters redefined or gotten rid of. And I fully understand and support that, even if it makes me itch and make those changes myself.

I made Asmodeus a deity forever ago. I've never had Bane in my pantheons in any game.

 

[Minigiant]

You can do that, but it means either putting Bane in charge of Asmodeus, or making Asmodeus a god. They can't both exist as the Lord of Tyranny on the same spectrum.

But, part of the problem with making that change is many people don't want to see classic characters redefined or gotten rid of. And I fully understand and support that, even if it makes me itch and make those changes myself.

The FR and Nerath versions of the 2 are different and have different portfolios.

FR Bane: God of Tyranny and Conquest
DW Bane: God of War and Conquest
FR Asmodeus: God of Sin Indulgence and Hell
DW Asmodeus: God of Tyranny and Hell

 

[Helldritch]

It is a common trope, but it isn't the only one. In fact.. I think it is probably more in the minority, in terms of religions.

Looking back at the Greeks, the enemies of the gods are far fewer than the eventual number of Olympians, and potentially close to even with the 12 original Olympians who overthrew the titans.

In Shinto there are probably more malevolent spirits than good spirits, but they aren't weaker. In fact, many of them are stronger than the good spirits, because their evil comes from the corruption of violence, and the good spirits flee instead of fight. So they are more numerous and more powerful. Of course, the Kami are more powerful than most Yokai, but the most powerful Yokai are in the same weight-class as the Kami.

And the Jotun of Asgaard? Or the Indian mythos? Or South American mythology in which you placate the gods to make them not do evil? Or the Assyrian mythos? Babylonian? Or even the Judeo Christian? Nahhhhhhhh! It is not in the minority. In fact, if you go by the amount of worshipers, it migth even be one of the most common trope in the religious history.

Also, the "evil turns on itself" isn't the point, in fact, it makes the usual problem of Evil worse. Not only are the gods of good far stronger than the forces of evil, but evil is also fighting amongst itself. Good should wipe the floor with them.

It is not the trope. It is a trope. A big difference here.

I agree it was a reason, but I don't like it. Personally, I removed the distinction of "evil gods". The Archdevils and the Demon Princes fill those roles perfectly, and I don't need Evil gods. Antagonistic gods? Sure, that's awesome. But even the worst gods have enough redeeming features in my world to be neutral. I don't need "the god of poison" when I have a Demon Lord of Poison and an Archdevil who specializes in alchemical work and poisons, and Primal Spirits of various poisonous aspects of the natural world.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. That was part of the game and it was a great thing that made cleric a relevant class. It also explained quite a lot about demons and devils trying to emulate the gods in the hopes of stealing some of their powers for themselves. Without that, you are left with yourself questionning the role of evil gods and if their existence should be a thing. You have to retcon things so that your solution works out but your solution leaves out the why and how cleric should still be a thing. And who knows, maybe it is only one evil god that is working through out your devils and demons. Tharzidun is known for doing this on a wide scale...

 

[Minigiant]

I like this as a concept, but if I was doing this, I'd remove the archdevils and the demon princes. It shouldn't be that we have cosmic beings aligned with say, Lust, that aren't aligned with the cosmic being that encapsulates Lust.

After all, demons and devils are living embodiments of ideas and concepts too.

Edit: So it would make sense for the demons and devils to be directly tied to the source of their ideas and concepts, which would be the god of that concept.

Which could lead to some odd overlaps, like a Demon of Order. Which is kind of awesome to think about

I made Asmodeus a deity forever ago. I've never had Bane in my pantheons in any game.

One time I toyed with in 4e is upgrading multiple demon princes and archdevils to godhood by assigning them a sin then cutting down the nmber of total archfiends.

Asmodeus (Devil God of Pride)
Tiamat (Dragon Goddess of Greed)
Baalzebul (Devil God of Sloth)
Yeenoghu (Demon God of Wrath)
Malcanthet (Demon Goddess of Lust)
Dispater (Devil God of Vainglory)
Mephistopheles (Devil God of Envy)
Lolth (Elf Goddess of Deceit)
Juiblex (Demon God of Gluttony)

but I couldn't assign one for Demogorgon and that wouldn't be right.

 

[Voadam]

Exactly! Additionally, the gods that people have historically worshipped have overwhelmingly been good. Even the ones that were evil had redeeming characteristics. No one would want to worship a pantheon of primarily evil gods, so almost all of the main gods in the mythologies (whether it's Greco-Roman, Norse, Egyptian, or some other mythology) were benevolent or at least just. A pantheon like the D&D Orcish or Dark Seldarine Pantheons wouldn't exist, because no culture would worship a pantheon consisting of almost entirely evil deities, even if their mythology stated that they created you.

This strikes me as a weird view of what we know of the mythologies.

Zeus is considered a god of justice among other aspects, but he is also infamous for being outright terrible in many ways. Generally the Greek gods were powerful, vain, capricious beings who felt they were better than others and would punish those who would tick them off but also strike out randomly (disease from Apollo's arrows comes to mind). This is in part because part of their function was as an explanation or personification for random bad things in the world, and part of the folklore characterization of them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Something else I should have mentioned earlier is that Orcus has frequently been depicted as seeking to graduate from a demon lord to a god. In 2E he accidentally destroyed himself in the process before being resurrected (with his undead counterpart Tenebrous also becoming a thing), the 3E Ghostwalk setting featured Orcus as a god, and in 4E Orcus attempted to use a shard of the Abyss' core to kill the goddess of death, gain her divine spark to become the new god of death, and then use this divine influence over the fates of souls to turn all who die into undead thralls.

So "god" is, at least in some depictions throughout D&D history, definitely a step-up from demon lord or devil.

I think everyone agrees that is the case, we are mostly wondering why that is the case. There are explanations, but the best explanations all cause weird things to happen with the current paradigm. Like, if Nerull is the concept of undeath, and beyond Orcus... Orcus would make sense as a lieutenant of Nerull, even if he was a disloyal and traitorous one. Instead, they have no connection except both of them being a source of undead, and unique undead at that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I made Asmodeus a deity forever ago. I've never had Bane in my pantheons in any game.

I made Bane more Lawful Neutral (even though I don't use alignmnets) and refer to him as the Iron King, in charge of the Human pantheon since the war with the Abominations which destroyed the human homeworld.

Asmodeus isn't a deity in my setting, because he specifically wanted to be something else, and he in some ways is the Nine Hells.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I think everyone agrees that is the case, we are mostly wondering why that is the case. There are explanations, but the best explanations all cause weird things to happen with the current paradigm. Like, if Nerull is the concept of undeath, and beyond Orcus... Orcus would make sense as a lieutenant of Nerull, even if he was a disloyal and traitorous one. Instead, they have no connection except both of them being a source of undead, and unique undead at that.

The changing nature of both the concept of the multiverse and the gods makes things more complicated. In 3E and 4E, different settings existed in different cosmologies and had their own sets of planes and gods. 5E went back to the idea of their being a shared multiverse where all campaign settings take place in the same multiverse, but the gods of the Outer Planes are for whatever reason more strongly linked to certain worlds than others. In 4E's take, for example, killing a god was a bigger deal because it was the only god of that concept in a given setting's multiverse, whereas in 5E there are many gods of the same kind sharing the same Great Wheel but generally being limited to actually being worshiped and having power over certain worlds.

Taking Nerull in particular, he is most strongly linked to the Greyhawk setting. In both the default Points of Light setting of 4E and Critical Role's Exandria Nerull was killed by the mortal mage who would become the Raven Queen after stealing his divine power over death. In 5E the official stance as of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes was that the Raven Queen had a different origin and nature, was only worshipped as a god in some settings, and that she did not kill Nerull. Then Explorer's Guide to Wildemount was released and pretty much reverted her back to her 4E lore.

Taking all this into account, it seems that Orcus would benefit the most from becoming a god in a 3E or 4E cosmological model where he would be the one, undisputed God of Undeath of the setting. In cosmological models like 5E's, becoming a god seemingly has more cons in that gods are strongly linked to a small number of worlds, perhaps even only one. With that in mind, would Orcus rather be the Demon Lord of Undeath that can operate in multiple campaign settings, or would he rather become a God of Undeath in only one world of many? Further, why would he serve Nerull, who is only a god in Greyhawk? These and other details personally lead me to continue to use the 3E/4E take of settings being isolated rather than part of a broad multiverse of settings.

While I'm writing a wall of text, I would also like to point out that the identity of a being can impact its flavor and what else is associated with it. A god of undeath presumably has a realm among the Outer Planes and relations with other deities. Orcus has both undead and demonic underlings as well as rival demon lords, such as Demogorgon, who all want to be the most free being in the multiverse with no one to answer to. Atropus, the World Born Dead, is a moon-sized undead Elder Evil of mysterious origins that seemingly has little motivation on its own and only appears to create undead when drawn to worlds that have experienced death on a massive scale. Rather than have them all linked, these different entities could oppose each other, or Orcus could try to seize control of Atropus or something.

 

[SkidAce]

I think everyone agrees that is the case, we are mostly wondering why that is the case. There are explanations, but the best explanations all cause weird things to happen with the current paradigm. Like, if Nerull is the concept of undeath, and beyond Orcus... Orcus would make sense as a lieutenant of Nerull, even if he was a disloyal and traitorous one. Instead, they have no connection except both of them being a source of undead, and unique undead at that.

If embodiment of concepts is singular.

In some theology, there are smaller gods, and many more of them.

So many fire gods in my worlds.